I would appreciate some opinions. I have simplified the specific subdivision map to make the explanation easier. The facts:
Early 1900s California subdivision, 3 Blocks (1, 2 & 3) of 5 lots each. All lots 50 feet wide x 100 feet deep. The two 60 foot wide streets between the blocks were vacated by City resolution some time after the map recorded and developed as single family lots. From the street, it would look like a block of 17 residential lots.
Lots 2 and 3 in Block 3 are being re-subdivided into one lot with six condominium units. No original monuments recovered for the vacated streets or the original tract boundary. The block was established by found centerline street monuments for the abutting streets and RR RW.
The surveyor is proposing to establish the block tract corners A, B, C & D by bearing-bearing/offset. So far so good. Next, the surveyor wants to use proration to establish E, F, G & H using the ratio of AB-Measured/AB-Record and CD-Measured/CD-Record. The block runs about 1.5 feet short.
What acceptable exceptions are there to the general accepted rules of: 1) do not prorate beyond original found monuments and confine proration to within the block.
What do you see wrong, if anything with the following:
EF = BF = 100 x {[AB-Measured - (60+60)]/[AB-Record - (60+60)]}
GH = DH = 100 x {[CD-Measured - (60+60)]/[CD-Record - (60+60)]}
I am signing the map as the County Surveyor (under contract with the City). I have suggested that he show the original CL intersections for the two vacated 60 foot streets and show monument notes of searched for int. mon.; found nothing and provide a detailed establishment note clearly explaining the exception to following the general rules for establishment by proration. For the sake of discussion, lets rule out occupation as a superior method to proration (no fences, or walls and adequate side yards between homes etc).
Thanks in advance.
How would he prorate within blocks any differently than what he's doing in the big block? There's nothing to establish the centerlines of the abandoned streets is there, other than the intersections of the block defined by the 2" pipes?
That "rule" of prorating only within the block only makes sense when you can actually do it. I had a survey recently where one street bounding my block on the East had sidewalk on one side, not the other, the curbs were substantially not parallel to each other on both sides of the street, no monumentation of any kind, so I moved on to other evidence and said the street was not centered in the right of way. Another surveyor held to the "rule" and filed a survey for the next-door neighbor holding the catty-wampus street as controlling of the block which resulted in lot widths deviating way more from record and occupation than mine did.
As you directed, I'm biting my tongue regarding occupation lines and assuming that proration is the ticket here.
My take is the same as Steve's. The surveyor *is* prorating within each block, but only after establishing each of the 3 blocks by prorating in the block corners from the nearest accepted monuments by necessity. He's honoring the 60-foot widths of the former streets, so those now-lots get their full 60 feet, and the shortage gets shared by everyone else in the 3 blocks.
Looks kosher to me.
I would treat this as three blocks. Establishing those vacated streets would be my first step but not by prorate. The streets would hold thier width and the excess/deficiency would then be dealt with for the lots that are on either side of these vacated streets.
There was a time when the streets were active rights of way. Surveys were probably performed and improvements built from those surveys.
100:1 monuments still exist. Occupation cannot be ignored. If monuments do not exist, then the next step is what was built that could provide an answer as to where the vacated streets location were.
It's a good thing that you are signing as far as conformance to a tentative map Dennis, I would not back a survey such as the one presented with the method that is being discussed.
Prorate has it's place, and for me that is usually between existing monuments within the block. Make him go look for more, that's my answer. Tell him that the control he has is inadequate.
It's a good thing I dont map check, nothing would get recorded 🙂
> I would treat this as three blocks. Establishing those vacated streets would be my first step but not by prorate. The streets would hold thier width and the excess/deficiency would then be dealt with for the lots that are on either side of these vacated streets.
That's what the surveyor has proposed.
> 100:1 monuments still exist. Occupation cannot be ignored. If monuments do not exist, then the next step is what was built that could provide an answer as to where the vacated streets location were.
Paul, you're not playing by the rules Dennis laid down:
>No original monuments recovered for the vacated streets or the original tract boundary...For the sake of discussion, lets rule out occupation
> Paul, you're not playing by the rules Dennis laid down:
What else is new?
Prorate is a quick fix.
agreed. the ground rules were faulty/narrow.
Proportional Measure will get you to the one place where you can guarantee that the original monument was never at.
Only as a last resort... proportion between occupation as a search tool is probably a better idea in many cases... it follows with the valid concept of "occupation as a strong indicator the perpetuation of original survey monuments"
